That's not how any of this works. 

Which Fox News broadcast makes you more conservative?

The primary issue is when ideas are repeated. People watching their 100th Fox News broadcast are more likely to think differently than they did when they watched their 3rd. 

I don't know man. Perhaps I am just projecting, but I sense the movement of a goal post. Sure you did not say anything about the government. But you did say it was key to find out if something is thinly veiled hate speech or not. And how do we find that out? Your position seems to be: everyone for themselves. So your answer to the central question in the op would be "no, comedians should not have any limits". They can say whatever they want and if what they say is wrong, soon nobody would listen anymore. Free market, like you said.

And yet, you also said the problem is punching down. But who would stop people from punching down?

You said the problem is that some people push power over others. But who is to decide on what people in what instances have what sorts of transgressions? Speech transgressions mind you. Pushing power by saying stuff in a comedy show.

Then you said the real issue is being condescending and if you make holocaust jokes without being condescending, that is alright. So again, who is to say when somebody was a littel or too condescending?

You are saying free market - good comedians will float, bad ones will go under. But you are also saying that you think there is always a boundary. How so? Just for you personally than?

And if you are talking about an idealized standard, this is just your indivifual ideal and comedians should not have boundaries? -Because you would realize that comedians should not have your individual boundaries, since you are not the measurement for comedy, right?

In short, I am confused. The op asks if comedians should have boundaries. You seemed to argue for boundaries. But now not so much. So, should they have boundaries? Or are you just saying that YOU have boundaries and comedians should always be able to freely choose to respect or discard these? And if so, why even bring this up? -There is stuff others find funny that you would not? That you would be offended by? Not exactly a shocker, since you also (rightly) pointed out that different people have different standards.

And lastly, how would that standard you are talking about be ideal? Just for you, right?

Do you think that limits are only when the government applies them?

Consumer bases apply limits too. Society/culture places limits.

I've argued a few pages ago that everyone has limits. I wrote at least one post in here about how conservatives have their own boundaries.

These are me describing the same concept while using different words, hoping that one set of them will reach an understanding for someone. 

I didn't realize foxnews had stand up comedy.  I mean foxnews is funny as all shit, but for the wrong reasons.  

Growing up I loved Married with Children, can't say it made me want to sell shoes for a living.

Do you think comedy is in some magic mental space where it doesn't influence your thoughts?

If you're hearing about something, it will influence how you think about things. 

If your experience with gay people is limited to your parents being homophobic, chances are good you will be homophobic yourself.

If your experience with trans people is limited to Fox News's nonsense, chances are good you will be transphobic yourself.

Comedians can add to that.

OK, what jokes on Fox News have made you more homophobic?

Yes, because I understand the difference between a joke and reality. And I don't think we should make compromises for young children and those who suffer from credulity and the inability to separate entertainment from reality.

While I do agree there are some people influenced by dangerous comedy, they more or less resemble Maggie Simpson. And then they grow up (Well, unless they're Maggie Simpson):

Now I've got a question for you:

Do you actually agree with the radical feminists who wanted to ban the Bret Easton Ellis dark comedy novel American Psycho?
Or do you agree with the radical feminists who wrote and directed a film adaptation of the Bret Easton Ellis dark comedy novel American Psycho?

"it's funny because it's true"

Pretty much all of comedy works because the joke is applicable to how people understand reality. 

You talk about liking outrage comedy. Outrage comedy only works because of reality. You can't make outrage comedy about blorgflobs, because that's meaningless.  

You have to poke fun at people's real insecurities or real life challenges.  

If you were bothering to understand my perspective, instead of getting worked up, you'd understand that I'm not in favor of banning anything. 

Nobody is going to hear a comedian make a joke then go out and commit a hate crime because of it. And even if they did, that's not the comedian's fault; jokes and actions are separate things and actions are the responsibility of the person who chooses to do them.

The notion that  comedy causes real world harm is the same flawed logic used by anti-gaming folks back in the 90s when they argued that games like Doom were gonna make Millennials grow up to be a generation of sociopathic serial killers.

Maybe I'm just smarter than most.  I wouldn't go to a comedy show with a notebook so jot down life lessons.  

I didn't realize people couldn't disconnect reality from make believe.  

By default it makes no sense for someone to take a comedian seriously....